learning about scientific secrets simply aren't as urgent as saving lives in the next attack, or an ambush the following day

Are you saying that the 'terrorists' are now hiding in the shrubbery too? ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

I'd say torture is ok as long the recipient is a high ranking member of the US goverment or Military establishment. I think if those who support torture, and whatever Bush says the USA does torture people, were tortured then the cosmos would be balanced nicely.

I think that Daddio should weigh in on this topic.

---

Bypassing the ethical considerations, just for a moment, I'd like to report that the history of warfare shows a steady decline in ethics with each passing major conflict. At the rate that this is going, the torture of prisoners will become a commonplace, routine, activity in future conflicts, maybe even in the next "war/police action", maybe even in this one as we move forward.

Disheartening to be sure, but those are the inescapable conclusions that come from the facts, concerning the fall of ethics in warfare in the 20th-21st century.

---

in future conflicts

We need not worry 'bout that... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

OF COURSE you use psych tricks. Get this: Somewhere near 90+ percent of anyone you begin to interrogate sings at the first opportunity. After that you use psych tricks, Mutt and Jeff, Ego Up and Down, et cetera, you use a combination of all those things to break them. Menstrual blood on a Koran. Pork. Religious attacks. Futility. Any of those things. Most are very effective. Even then you can use the threat of waterboarding, whether you actually intend to use it or not. All that stuff is tried first.

Do none of you see this happening EVERYWHERE right under your noses? ;)

(Apparently, I'm of the stubborn 10%. Water-boarding, here I come.)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

There are a lot of "What if..." scenerios batted about to justify torture.
Here's one. What if the wrong person is tortured?
Here's another. What if it's you?
Of course, the maniac performing the torture will be expecting you to deny any and all knowledge of whatever subject the "interogation" is related to.
The only solution in the mind of the tormentor is to apply increased pain levels for longer durations.
In the end, you will die or be so damaged mentally and physically that your life is destroyed.
TORTURE IS NEVER OK!

There are a lot of "What if..." scenerios batted about to justify torture.
Here's one. What if the wrong person is tortured?
Here's another. What if it's you?
Of course, the maniac performing the torture will be expecting you to deny any and all knowledge of whatever subject the "interogation" is related to.
The only solution in the mind of the tormentor is to apply increased pain levels for longer durations.
In the end, you will die or be so damaged mentally and physically that your life is destroyed.
TORTURE IS NEVER OK!

That was stated very early on.

But, no, the professionals sleep well at night. And they don't think that some "only solution" is more pain. That statement is just dumb.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Well I suppose I should yield to your insider knowledge of what dumb is.
Thank you for setting the record straight.

Bypassing the ethical considerations, just for a moment, I'd like to report that the history of warfare shows a steady decline in ethics with each passing major conflict.

I have to disagree with you here Beets. I think what you are witnessing is an increase in reporting, not a change in what's taking place on the battlefield.

---

Bypassing the ethical considerations, just for a moment, I'd like to report that the history of warfare shows a steady decline in ethics with each passing major conflict.

I have to disagree with you here Beets. I think what you are witnessing is an increase in reporting, not a change in what's taking place on the battlefield.

Actually, what you are seeing is a more controlled press. The coverage of the Vietnam War was too much for the corporate backers of destruction and turmoil to overcome so they've devised a method of "Imbedding" reporters inside frontline action which has the added benefit of allowing cencorship to be based on the ongoing security of the troops the reporter is assigned to cover.
Once a reporter has become very close to the troops, actually dependent upon them for survival, there's less chance of objective reporting on any wrongdoing.

Bypassing the ethical considerations, just for a moment, I'd like to report that the history of warfare shows a steady decline in ethics with each passing major conflict.

I have to disagree with you here Beets. I think what you are witnessing is an increase in reporting, not a change in what's taking place on the battlefield.

Actually, what you are seeing is a more controlled press. The coverage of the Vietnam War was too much for the corporate backers of destruction and turmoil to overcome so they've devised a method of "Imbedding" reporters inside frontline action which has the added benefit of allowing cencorship to be based on the ongoing security of the troops the reporter is assigned to cover.
Once a reporter has become very close to the troops, actually dependent upon them for survival, there's less chance of objective reporting on any wrongdoing.

LAF...

Beets sees more unethical actions on the battlefield and you say there's less of a chance that objective reporting is taking place since the lives of the reporters are in the hands of the soldiers they are covering.

No offense guy, but the mere fact that you now here about "innocents" being "murdered" in Iraq but not in Japan and Germany during WW2 pretty much discredits your opinion.

---

the professionals sleep well at night.

People without a conscience usually do... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

No offense guy, but the mere fact that you now here about "innocents" being "murdered" in Iraq but not in Japan and Germany during WW2 pretty much discredits your opinion.

I used the Vietnam example because it was the first time in history that war coverage was brought directly to the public without having been run through government censorship first.
The old method used in WWII was via government controlled newsreels that were shown in cinemas before the main feature. Before television, this was the main way the public got to witness images of the war.
The corporate powers driving warfare do not want to make the vietnam mistake again but the biggest problem they encounter is modern technology which places video cameras in every cell phone.
They can never control information completely but they can still exercise control over the press.

The old method

That was well before his time... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

No offense guy, but the mere fact that you now here about "innocents" being "murdered" in Iraq but not in Japan and Germany during WW2 pretty much discredits your opinion.

I used the Vietnam example because it was the first time in history that war coverage was brought directly to the public without having been run through government censorship first.
The old method used in WWII was via government controlled newsreels that were shown in cinemas before the main feature. Before television, this was the main way the public got to witness images of the war.
The corporate powers driving warfare do not want to make the vietnam mistake again but the biggest problem they encounter is modern technology which places video cameras in every cell phone.
They can never control information completely but they can still exercise control over the press.

Again, this is a complete contradiction to Beets statement. Do you honestly believe the negative news coverage is coming from non "press" related news sources?

---

the professionals sleep well at night.

People without a conscience usually do... ;)

as do the employed.

---

Smashedbrainr
Almost everyone has access to some type of video recording device.
So many images of the horrors are making it out of the area that there is no way a governmnet can stop it.
My point was to show how the corporate warlords are trying to keep the mainstream press, with the largest audience of viewers, from reporting on the truth about what's happening on the ground.
One such method is imbedding reporters.
I'm glad you gave up so easily on your WWII theories.
You must have closed that gaping maw long enough to reconsider. For that I thank you.

Almost everyone has access to some type of video recording device.

Gotta luv how 'education' and 'technology' has come full circle to bite them in their butts... ;)

(They pushed for 'education' and 'technology', but now that they've harnessed the results, they want us all to return to being deaf dumb and blind.)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

The USA does not torture: we "extraordinary rendate" . Nothing like good obfuscation. We just steal your citizens off the street, send them to places like Egypt, and the other guys do the torture.